CHICAGO – With less than a month remaining before thousands of delegates and other participants gather in Chicago for the 2024 Democratic National Convention, a group of protestors are asking the federal appeals court in Chicago to allow their challenge to the City of Chicago’s “Footprint” Ordinance to move forward. The protestors, represented by lawyers at the ACLU of Illinois, argue that the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. They also note that the measure – passed earlier this year by the Chicago City Council cedes unchecked power to the Chicago Police Superintendent to change or alter items prohibited inside security zone and threatens protestors with criminal charges simply for bringing items into the zone they may regularly carry into a protest – such as a can of soda or a blood monitoring kit.
The “footprint ordinance” was adopted by the Chicago City Council in April with little public notice or discussion. The ordinance authorizes the Chicago Superintendent of Police to designate a “security footprint” around the United Center and McCormick Place. These zones – whose boundaries have not been announced -- will be designated by the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department and are expected to extend beyond the security perimeter announced on July 25th by the United States Secret Service. The ordinance – for the duration of the Convention – prohibits individuals from carrying and possessing “any item that poses potential safety hazard” according to the Superintendent in his sole discretion.
In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, three local activists who intend to demonstrate during the course of the Convention – Andy Thayer, Kristi Keorkunian and Linda Loew – asked the court to reverse a decision by a federal district court judge find the ordinance unconstitutional. The activists argue that the vague terms of the ordinance may deter many from entering the zones to protest and that they themselves fear arrest for carrying everyday items that they don’t know are prohibited.
“This ordinance could bar someone from wearing a button opposing limits on access to abortion care since the button has a point pin designed to attach the button to clothing,” said Andy Thayer, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “That would inherently limit the ability of any one to express themselves on this critical issue.”
“For those of us who are long-time activists and have participated in demonstrations in and around Chicago for decades, this ordinance appears designed to chill expression by threatening consequences for carrying something that is completely innocuous,” added Linda Loew. “Giving the unchecked power to one person – the Superintendent – to decide what people can bring to a protest is not consistent with basic First Amendment principles.”
When the activists brought their challenge in federal district court, the judge denied their claim, suggesting that the only harm that would come to a protestor would be that they would be forced to throw away any questionable objects before entering the zone. But the ordinance does not make that clear.
“The ordinance not only is unclear about what objects will be prohibited inside a security zone, it does not require a list of prohibited items to be posted on-line or at the security footprint so that people can consult it before attending a demonstration,” said Rebecca Glenberg, Senior Supervising Attorney at the ACLU of Illinois. “We are urging the appellate court to decide this matter quickly with so little time before the Convention begins.”
The “Footprint” ordinance, according to the filing, is not a mere nuisance. Violators of the ordinance are at risk of being sentenced for up to six months of incarceration for carrying a banned object – again, as determined by the Superintendent solely – while protesting on behalf of abortion or LGBTQ+ rights near the United Center during the DNC.
“I have diabetes, and I’m sure that other protesters do as well,” added plaintiff Kristi Keorkunian. “Someone who needs to carry a glucose monitoring kit – including a lancet – may risk a charge under this Ordinance simply to express themselves. This is grossly unfair.”
“Chicago needs to be a center for vigorous free expression during the Convention,” Glenberg added. “This ordinance presents an obstacle to that goal. We hope the appeals court will move quickly on our request.”
A copy of the filing can be found here.